Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01 July 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/CN2021/112498, filed 08/13/2021) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (CN202010827754.X, filed 08/17/2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 11-18, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions 1-3, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 14 May 2025, is hereby withdrawn and Claims 11-18 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 03 June 2026 have been entered.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 are sufficient; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MULLER et al. (US 6,409,921 B1), Applicant’s amendments to Claim 1 are sufficient; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Please note the added Claim Objections over Claims 11, 13, and 15 and the added 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 17 and 18 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of Claims 17 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“step 1:… wherein the compound A is a solvent for the polyolefin polymer, and the compound B is a non-solvent for the polyolefin polymer and elevates the separation temperature for a phase…”;
“step 2: extruding the homogeneous casting solution in a die…”;
“step 4: cooling the molding with a coolant comprising the compound A…”;
“step 5: quenching the molding with a quenchant comprising the compound A at a…”; and
“step 6: removing the compound A and the compound B from the nascent membrane…”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“and a mass ratio of the compound A to the compound B is 1-5:1”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“with a treating solution comprising the compound A at a precooling…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim only requires that the asymmetric hydrophobic polyolefin hollow fiber membrane of Claim 1 is used “for human blood oxygenation” and fails to set forth any steps involved in such a process. Thus, this claim is not considered a proper process claim and is simply a recitation of a use.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim only requires that the asymmetric hydrophobic polyolefin hollow fiber membrane of Claim 1 is used “for gas-liquid separation” and fails to set forth any steps involved in such a process. Thus, this claim is not considered a proper process claim and is simply a recitation of a use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim provides for the use of the asymmetric hydrophobic polyolefin hollow fiber membrane of Claim 1, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 17 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Regarding Claim 18, the claim provides for the use of the asymmetric hydrophobic polyolefin hollow fiber membrane of Claim 1, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP § 2173.05(q)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The claimed invention is directed to a composite polyolefin hollow fiber membrane having a support layer and a separation layer, the separation layer having a specific pore structure on its outer surface and the hollow fiber membrane having a specific tensile strength and elongation at break. The invention is also directed to a method of preparing the claimed membrane.
The most relevant prior art of record, MULLER et al. (US 6,409,921 B1) discloses a similar asymmetric hydrophobic polyolefin membrane with similar pore structure and density as claimed. However, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the tensile strength and elongation-at-break. Such limitations are considered to not be inherent as persuasively argued by Applicants in the response filed 03 June 2026. Thus, the claimed invention is allowable due to the lack of prior art disclosing or making obvious the combination of these claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
